[extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition...

Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 27 17:15:10 UTC 2004


--- Technotranscendence <neptune at superlink.net> wrote:

> On Friday, November 26, 2004 10:03 AM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
> wrote:
> > Well, in that case I can clearly state that
> > atheism is a tertullian form of faith, particularly
> > because it is inherently impossible to prove
> > a negative, i.e. it is impossible to prove the
> > non-existence of God. Ergo, atheists believe
> > the impossible.
> 
> Wrong!  Again, Mike confuses belief with justification for a
> particular
> belief.  (And, as I've stated before, atheism is merely the lack of
> belief in God/gods.)  Merely being an atheist (or a theist) does not
> commit one to a particular justification.  Yes, there could be
> Tertullian atheists but that doesn't mean atheism is necessarily
> Tertullian.  (As I've mentioned earlier, too, not all theists hold
> their theism because of a Tertullian fath in God.  Recall,
> Tertullian faith is believing _against_ logic and evidence.)

A person without a belief in god, but also without a belief in the
non-existence of god, is more properly described as an agnostic.

A belief without justification is a faith.

> On a very trivial level, a person might not have ever thought of the
> idea of God/gods and just never have come to a belief about God/gods.
> That person would lack a belief in God/gods.  Let's say there was a
> machine called the Belief Detector -- a machine that detects specific
> beliefs in people's minds when it's close enough to them:) -- and the
> dial was set to "God/gods" and it was place next to this person.  It
> would register "No belief."  That would make the person an atheist. 

No, it would make them an agnostic or an atheist, depending on what a
follow up detection said about their belief in the non-existence of
god.

> 
> Now, as for proving the negative, what is to be proved?  As George H.
> Smith, Michael Martin, and others have pointed out, the concept of
> God/gods is flawed in the conventional and traditional definitions --
> 
> i.e., a transcendent being that is omnipotent, omniscient, etc.  It's
> contradictory and incoherent.  (I'm not using Smith, Martin, etc. as
> authorities here, just giving credit where credit is due.  Plus, it'd
> be easier on me for you to read their works than for me to either
> regurgitate their views or ramify my own on the subject in this
> venue.:)
> Damien Broderick came up with some examples similar to "God/gods:"
> "square circle" and "pitch-black light."  One need not prove that
> square
> circles do not exist because there are plainly contradictory and
> meaningless -- at least, in the English language as the words are
> usually defined.
> 
> The proving a negative only works for things that are logically
> possible.  The concept of God or gods does not fit that bill.

Now you are putting yourself into tertullian territory again, by
justifying, via a claim to logical proof, that the concept of god does
not have a logical possibility of existence in any sort of reality.
This is an assertion to justification of a belief in the non-existence
of god.

An assertion about 'square circles' and 'pitch black light' being
impossible are easily dismissed: non-euclidean geometries could easily
posit the existence of square circles, just as they include rules like
parallel lines that touch, etc. while 'pitch black light' is easily
demonstrated as photons transmitted at ultra-violet frequencies....

=====
Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list